Representation on EdinburghGate

"Here I post the representation on the occlusion from studies I have been suffering for seniors at the University of Edinburgh conceal their breach in the University regulations as explained in the EdinburghGate case."

The University of Edinburgh has failed to adequately respond to this representation or provided adequate review to the Principal decision since 11/9/2009. Please write to the Principal@ed.ac.uk and request formal request from the University of Edinburgh to verify what is incidental at the University of Edinburgh.

Representation on the University sanctions to exclude me from my studies:

Despite I am requesting from the Principal to review his own decision since 11/9/2009, no review was conducted up to its date. I assumed he made this decision on urgent basis hence requested a review within five days, but no review was conducted. Please inquire from the Principal about the unreasonable delay to conduct a review in line with section 5.1.9. I am requesting court review since 25/9/2009, up to its date the Rector has not authorized a court review. Please write to the Rector to request explanation on the unreasonable delay to authorize the court review in line with section 5.1.8.

I shall deal firstly with the decision of suspension as conveyed by the 25 June 2009 letter, as subsequent decisions made by the University appear to stem from the terms of this initial communication. I object this decision on the following grounds:-

1- There is no justification for use of powers provided in Section 5.1.7 of the University’s Code of Student Discipline.
2- The procedures provided for in Section 5.1.6 of the said Code of Discipline were not correctly followed.
3- The decision to suspend has been based on allegations which are unfounded. No evidence has been provided to substantiate these allegations.
4- I was given no prior warning of the fact that the University held concerns in relation to me which might lead to the following case.

This can be details in turn as the following:-

1.There is no justification for use of powers provided in Section 5.1.7 of the University’s Code of Student Discipline.

Section 5.1.7 of the University Code of Student Discipline states that “In cases of great urgency, the principal (or his deputy) shall be empowered to suspend a student with immediate effect, provided that the opportunities mentioned in paragraph 5.1.6 are given and the matter is reviewed within 5 days”. There was no justified reason to invoke the urgent mandate conveyed to me in writing. Indeed, all allegations in the letter of 25.6.2009 were vague and are unfounded. The university never provided justification for categorising this issue as ‘urgent’ and evoking the powers under paragraph 5.1.7 of the said Code of Discipline. Moreover, the University Secretary is not typically entitled to this claimed power to suspend me on urgent basis under the invoked 5.1.7 code of disciplines as well (he is neither the Principal nor his deputy). The University should provide explanation for invoking section 5.1.7 to impose this sanction on me.

2. The procedures provided for in Section 5.1.6 of the said Code of Discipline were not correctly followed.

Section 5.1.7 of the Code of Discipline provides that if the powers to suspend a student with immediately effect are utilised, the opportunities mentioned in paragraph 5.1.6 must be given. Section 5.1.6 of the Code provides that “no student shall be suspended or excluded unless he or she has been given an opportunity to make representations in person to the principal (or his or her deputy). Where, for any reason, it appears to the principal that it is not possible for the student to attend in person, he or she shall be entitled to make written representations”.
In my case, at no point in the proceedings the University has given me an opportunity to make representations in person to the principal (I was never invited for such a representation and I declined it). The university never explained why I have not been given this opportunity in terms of Section 5.1.6 and it is mandatory to provide proposals to rectify this.

3.The decision of suspension has been based on allegations which are unfounded. No evidence has been provided to substantiate these allegations.

The University letter of 25 June 2009 addressed to me cites two grounds for the suspension:

(i) That my anxiety is making it difficult for other colleagues to work normally:
(ii) That I have sent emails to members of the university staff “making serious unfounded allegations about specific members of the academic staff”.

In relation to point (i) I refutes any suggestion that I have impacted on the ability of others at the university to work. I consider that the statement in the letter is vague and it has never been substantiated. The University has never explained how my behaviour has allegedly impacted upon or how my behaviour has allegedly impacted on these unknown individuals.

I accept that I have suffered from some level of anxiety. I initially sought assistance from my GP and now manage any anxiety I experience by non-medical techniques (e.g. physical exercise). I confirm my anxiety has not resulted in any behaviour which could impact on others at the university and the University did not provide evidence of otherwise. In addition, I work alone in an office at the university which is only used by me i.e. my presence does not genuinely impact on other members from the University of Edinburgh.
The university is called upon to substantiate the allegations levied against me on these terms.

In relation to point (ii) I have not sent emails containing any unfounded allegations to university staff. I note my complaint cannot be categorized under this item, as this is a subject for the University full investigation and consideration. Once again, the university’s allegation remains unsubstantiated as the emails referred to have never been produced. The university is called upon to produce the emails on which the second ground of my suspension is based.

4.I was given no prior warning of the fact that the University held concerns in relation to me.

I was given no prior warning that the university had any difficulties with my attendance at university before the suspension was enforced. I was only advised of any problem when I was told to leave the university premises on 25 June 2009, by security personnel, which was extremely distressing to me (then I am being penalized on having some levels of anxiety). I had not received anything in writing from the University by this date, thus was unaware of any concerns. Moreover, an inappropriate email was circulated in the department by Professor Amanda Amos requesting all staff and students to call the security if noticed me and to prevent me to access my office space. This was inappropriate as I have never been notified by such a decision then did not comply to take such an aggressive and embarrassing procedure to implement it. The university is called upon to explain why matters were not discussed with me prior to any sanctions being imposed.

I turn now to the university’s decision for not to allow me to enrol for the academic year 2009/2010. This was intimated to me by letter of 11 September 2009, just one week before the start of the new academic year. The letter states that Edinburgh University declines to register me for the new session. The sole ground stated that I have not been cooperative to assure the University that my presence will not be disruptive to staff and students. The Principal provided opportunity to review this decision in case I am cooperative in this aspect.

There are several points I need to adequately underscore before proceeding in this matter further. The Principal used the statement “I have concluded” and he then added “I have asked the University Secretary to take necessary measures to ensure that you are not a registered student”. This is adequately confirms this is a decision made and arranged by the Principal. It is typical for the Principal to require his subordinates to implement his decision e.g. University Secretary acting in accordance to the Principal’s instructions to exclude me from this academic year registration. Moreover, there is no student code which states that student should be automatically excluded from their studies when the new academic year commences and/or suspension for over two months. This makes the Principal decision a new one and cannot be rectified as subsequent to the University Secretary earlier decision. Also, my current status cannot be suspended as by which power the University will suspend me while I am not practically registered or how else the Principal’s letter cannot be explained? The University of Edinburgh is called upon to explain various contradictory letter which describes my current status as “suspended” and “not registered”.

The Principal offered an opportunity to reconsider this decision i.e. this clearly indicate this decision is subject to a review according to the capacity indicated in the Students Codes. The Students Codes are clear that it is only the Principal of three court members (with at least one lay and one academic) can review such a decision – sections 5.1.9 and 5.1.8. This means, with all the respect neither the Vice Principal for equity and diversity nor the court VC can act on this requested review. Moreover, your letter did not address any of the points I raised, besides being not eligible to conduct such a review according to the Students Codes.
I turn again to the grounds of this decision. The decision was based on a request to verify that my presence will not be disruptive to staff and students. The University called upon to rectify how my physical presence in a private office would be disruptive to others. Clearly I have mutual agreement with the University that I am able to finish my degree successful in relatively short time once all the support is available (although this support is not settled yet).

My position is that the decision to prevent me from enrolling for the new academic year should be overturned with no delay as I have accepted my re-enrolment according to the Students Codes in the letters of 25/Jan and 4/Feb/2010. The Principal clearly stated my cooperation will lead to solving all this issue to be able to accomplish my degree successfully. I am herby fully cooperative with the University to achieve this aim. Nevertheless, the University is required to substantiate and rectify any conditions on my re-enrolment from the Students codes.

The decisions made by the University have clearly prevented me from completing my PhD, which was clearly at a very advanced stage with enormous documented success. This has a direct effect on my future prospects and career path.